ArticleYonsei medical journal2025
Validation of Devices for the Five Times Sit To Stand Test: Comparing Plantar Pressure and Head Motion Analysis with Manual Measurement.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Insole-Derived Plantar Pressure Variability Reveals Dual-Task Gait Differences in Early-Stage Parkinson's Disease.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2026Article
- Promoting Rehabilitation Using a Multimodal Internet of Things-Based Patient Monitoring System in a Smart Hospital.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2026Article
- Effects of 16-week tai chi practice on sit-to-stand performance and lower-limb neuromuscular control strategies in community-dwelling older adults: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to evaluate a new method for the five times sit to stand test (FTSST), crucial for addressing frailty in an aging population. It utilizes a smart insole for plantar pressure analysis and a marker-less motion capture device for head height analysis. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-five participants aged 50 years or older underwent FTSST assessment using three methods: manual measurement with a stopwatch (FTSST-M), plantar pressure analysis with smart insoles (FTSST-P), and head height analysis with a marker-less motion capture device (FTSST-H). Simultaneous measurements using three methods were done. Correlation between results of these methods were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and κ coefficient. Comprehensive clinical examinations were conducted with ethical approval.
resultsParticipants' mean scores for FTSST-M, FTSST-P, and FTSST-H were 2.43±1.20, 2.43±1.29, and 2.37±1.31, respectively. Correlations of the times and corresponding scores between FTSST-P and FTSST-M, as well as FTSST-H and FTSST-M, exceeded 0.9 (ICC and κ coefficients,
conclusionThis study showed strong correlation between FTSST results using smart insoles and marker-less motion capture, compared to conventional methods. These findings highlight the potential of these technologies for precise FTSST measurements, offering convenience and cost-effectiveness. Simultaneous use of these devices enables diverse analyses, enhancing our understanding of frailty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.